Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 9.3.2004 passed in Claim Petitions No. 275/2000, 227/2000, 276/2000, 278/2000 and 280/2000 by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City, Jaipur (in short the MACT) they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. The facts in brief are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries received by Ashok Kumar and Smt. Kiran and for the death of Kumari Divya, Tolaram and Shyam Lal. The said claim petitions were later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City, Jaipur where the same were registered as claim petitions Nos. 28/2004, 29/2004, 30/2004, 31/2004 and 32/2004. It was alleged in the claim petitions that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of Matadeen, who was driving bus o. RJ 18 P 0733 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short R.S.R.T.C.) when all the victims were traveling in the Tata Mobile No. HR 21 3643 which was being driven by Shyam Lal, resulting in death of Tola Ram, Shyam Lal, and Kumari Divya and injuries to Ashok Kumar and Smt. Kiran. The FIR to the incident was lodged at Police Station, Harmada bearing FIR No. 351/1999. The R.S.R.T.C. filed reply to the claim petitions before the Tribunal denying the averments made by the claimants. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Tata Mobile driver. It was argued by the R.S.R.T.C. that in these circumstances the R.S.R.T.C. cannot be held liable for making the payment of any compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues. The claimants and the R.S.R.T.C. produced evidence. After considering the claim petitions, written statements and the evidence produced by the parties, the MACT allowed the claim petitions and directed the appellant R.S.R.T.C. to pay the compensation. Against the common award dated 9.3.2004, the R.S.R.T.C. preferred four appeals for quashing and setting the award of the M.A.C.T. and the claimants filed two appeals, as mentioned above for enhancing the claims.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant R.S.R.T.C. has contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of R.S.R.T.C. There is ample evidence on record that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Tata Mobile Driver, when he was trying to overtake a truck in a very hurry manner and did not care to see the bus which was coming from the opposite direction. It was argued that in these circumstances the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. cannot be held guilty. The learned counsel has contended that the driver has tried his best to avoid the accident but the fact is that the Tata Mobile driver came out of sudden in front of the bus and as such there was no time left with the driver to avoid the accident and in such circumstances, the contributory negligence of the Tata Mobile driver cannot be ruled out. The driver of bus has been charge sheeted by the Police, cannot be said to be the sole ground for holding the driver negligent, because it is settled law that the finding of the police authorities, is not binding upon the Tribunal and the Tribunal is supposed to give its own reasons for holding the driver negligent. The driver, owner and insurer of the Tata Mobile have not been impleaded as party to the claim petition and as such the claim petitions deserve to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the award may be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, appearing for the injured cl